Schmidtfire

I play a lot of multiplayer and the local Special Options settings does not have any effect when playing online. So, Magnitude 3, could you please integrate the following items fully into the MiG-21bis module? Realistic ASP IR A-A Missile Reticle Drives me nuts every time it does not work realistic but the box is checked. Why is this optional? Default is also set to off. SPECIAL FEATURES (the more realistic and useful RWR functionality) Whitout this we are stuck with the old RWR logic. Knowing what direction you are locked from is extremely important when trying to avoid a threat. The initial test were successful, so this should have been integrated by now. Also drives me completely nuts when it is not working but the box is checked in the Special Options tab. I know you have a lot on your plate and are not the fastest dev team (listened to your interview ) But please, look into integrating this stuff into the module. Or at the very least find a way so our Special Options settings work no matter if we play SP or MP.

I agree with Deka on this one. There is a very real reason why there is no BRM rockets on the inner pylons in real life. IF it is eventually modelled then it should be a a very risky loadout that can cause engine surge.

It’s very nice and fun to fly! Some minor issues with the accuracy of guns/radar sight, but nothing major. They have not included any nukes to use with the LABS system, so if you expect to go full ”Dr. Strangelove”, you have to make do with iron bombs.

Unless there has been complaints, I don't think ED will waste money and resources on re-developing the 530D. I expect this to be a reality for upcoming "high-profile" weapons such as MICA, Meteor, IRIS-T, PL-15 etc.

+1 Same for the Viper. I would be very interested in an early F-16A.

Managed to find a demo of the APR-39 RWR. I heard that Polychop will create their own sounds for the Kiowa module, but this channel might be worth contacting for reference or recordings of the original sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtI9G1ZOMWk&ab_channel=RCAFLibrary

Im quite sure the OLS over performs. It has been discussed before. Symbology should also be different. IRL the designator box for OLS is taller than the radar designator box. For me the biggest flaw is the HMS. It is presented far from reality (totally wrong in DCS) and it was such an important system of the MiG-29.

Combat Air Patrol 2 But it doesn’t matter. The Harrier module cost more than a full AAA game and should be compared to other DCS products, not on what is avalible outside the platform.

+1 ARBS/DMT updates would be very welcome.

It still has a fair amount of issues and missing functionality as far as the systems go. Seems to be a struggle just to get the HUD symbology right, it's been out for 3 years so that is quite telling I would think. The Harrier can be enjoyable for the casual DCS player. Razbam has added cool features such as Laser JDAM's and an improved targeting pod. But If you are more into learning how the actual systems work and get a full sim experience you might be dissapointed as it is not on the accuracy level as some of the other modules avalible. That is my take on the Harrier.

Fantastic news! Looking forward to this module. Here is a great read (46 pages) on the Mirage F-1 variants, foreign users, Systems and Armament. Loads of pictures too :) http://f6dsh.free.fr/de%20la%20part%...irage%20F1.pdf

Issue is till present in latest update. I love to sling heaters, but that does not solve issues with finding enemy at longer ranges, in night/bad weather or IFF. Not saying it is an easy fix, but it has been 7 months with ED aware of the situation. If this would happen for months and months to the Viper, Hornet, Tomcat or Viggen there would be pitchforks flying all over.

I think It matters. Because those loadouts you would never see IRL becomes the DCS norm. If there is a war, would you risk your valuable air assetts and pilots just so you can shoot another two AGM-65 Mavericks per flight? Don't think so. There should be an optional mission editor setting that enforce realistic and operational loadouts. What I don't understand is the need for 4 HARMS. The need for 6 Mavericks. The need to put JDAM's or APKWS on everything. I like to have options, but lately there seems to be an obsession of min-maxing every jet. "ED plz put this thing on my aeroplane so I can be more competitive on GAW server" stretching the believability of the sim just because some users like to fly like Rambo and take out an entire airbase by themselves in one go. FYI: Payload management, Landing and Rearming is also part of the DCS experience.

The periscope/sight might look something like this: From this video: @ 26:50 they use the sight and launch a Shturm. If it is the correct sight symbology I don't know as documentaries frequently "borrow" and mix and match video material so it works for the storytelling.

I think there is a firm place for a full fidelity MiG-29A. "Balance" is only a concern in multiplayer, but as we know, the M-2000C is still very popular even going up against the most modern threats that DCS has to offer. Not everyone is interesting in min-maxing to be competitive, there are plenty of other pc games that offer that. Mission makers need to understand that there are ways to create missions that put older Redfor aircraft on the same playingfield against the modern Bluefor fighters. Give them better GCI and let them fly close to SAM and AAA coverage. They should try to balance the missions, not the jets.

The best thing would probably to put a couple of selectable monitor and VR view options in the Special Options tab. If that solves the issue? From memory, all this started with the 3D model/Cockpit update a few years back. I get that it needs to look correct in VR, but the majority of players are using a monitor. That will not change until VR becomes cheap and DCS engine is optimized to handle VR at reasonable framerates.

Finally found some footage of DMT in action! TV tracker locked and unlocked.

Critical AoA from a dev perspective is extremely difficult to simulate. This module has changed a lot over the years, but I think the flight model is in a pretty good place now. There was a time a few years back when the flight model became messy because it was thinkered with back and forth every week... I don't think anyone wants to go back into that carousel again unless there is something seriously wrong. Reading OP's complaints, my understanding is that the major issue is not really the stall behaviour, but the suddenness. It is the lack of feedback right before the behaviour sets in. Feedback such as sound or buffeting.

I don’t know if airburst option is simulated in DCS. For example, AJS-37 has the m/71 bombs. IRL they are airburst fragmentation bombs used against soft targets, but in DCS they work as a regular MK series bomb.

You can sort of do this without scripting using custom F10 radio or triggerzone. When the F10 JAMMING is set to ON, display a JAMMER ON radio message. Set the SAM launcher vehicle AI to OFF. As an alternative you can create a triggerzone around the SAM and when the Jamming aircraft enters the zone then the vehicle AI will be set to OFF. You can also make it so that the SAM radar turns off and try to hide by using missile detected in zone. Just create a trigger zone around the SAM area and if missile is detected in zone - AI OFF if not - AI ON It is possible to create a lot of stuff in the ME without using scripts :)

After further testing, the drifting C701 was caused by jitter and dust on my HOTAS slew sensor. Hardware issue. Problem solved.

So where are we with the Viggen relase? Exterior sounds, new textures... ? Any plans to investigate the FM/Drag? Might be wrong here, but it seems like the Viggen has a bunch of drag-related issues to be sorted out. Quite "dense" to fly According to at least one IRL Viggen pilot the DCS version needs afterburner flying with bombs, something that was not needed IRL. Flying without stores - going out AF is like stepping on a brake.

It is pretty bad that even some of the basic stuff like HUD symbology (that are displayed in front of you on every flight) is missing, wrong or not working correctly. The audio popping (looping) issues also give it a sloppy representation. Has not been fixed since release and I cannot understand why. Sidearm? I understand if all modes or functions are implemented yet, but what is in should match documentation. Comparing with EA modules from Eagle Dynamics or Heatblur, their research and implementation is on point. I understand if EA takes a long time, but what is implemented should be as accurate as possible. Small details count. And while Im a fan of the M-2000C another Razbam product, it also had major accuracy issues. Thats why we got the Mid-Life Overhaul after input from the AdA. HOTAS and systems. The difference is night and day. What did I fly before the overhaul? Anyways, I hope that Razbam ups their quality level. Harrier is a fun and popular module but needs a lot of further development and polish to be what I expect from a DCS module.

C701 I have seen several tutorial videos and read documentation but Im still having issues. in SP mode the 701 is ”wandering” around. The crosshair moves around and is not stabilized on screen. Very difficult to slew adjust and get a lock as the crosshair slowly moves accross the screen. in SLAV mode it is till difficult to get the 701 seeker pointed at the target, even if I have a SPI set. Not as easy as working with the Maverick on Harrier or A-10C.. What am I missing?

There has been several discussions about Iran version of F-14. With the soon to be released F-14A, just wondering if anything has been confirmed in that regard? Livery, possible changes to cockpit/systems or "experimental" weapons like Fakour-90 or possibly russsian missiles such as R-73. I understand that this might not be a priority, just wondering as I find it very interesting. It adds for a lethal Redfor threat and fits really well with the Persian Gulf map :)